Would it be easier to defend a case regarding real property or intellectual property?

If by "defend" you mean that my client would be being sued, I would say intellectual property provides far more opportunities for combatting allegations. FOr example, if, in a real property case, Plaintiff claims that I have built a fence on part of his property, it would be quite a simple matter for him to prove it and the thing would indeed speak for itself. If, on the other hand, in an IP case, Plaintiff claims that I copied his original work, he would have to first prove that the work was his original work. Then he would have to prove my access to his original work. Then he would need to prove substantial similarity between his work and mine. Then at some point, he would need to prove that his work was original to begin with. There are arguments that I could make at every one of these junctures that could give the trier of fact pause and give my client another chance to defeat these allegations.

I think the point is that defining intellectual property can be much more nettlesome, as can be demonstrating any allegations of unauthorized use.

I perceive intellectual property law to be more complicated than most issues of real property law. Of course, there are always exceptions to every rule and each case is different.

In order to be eligible to practice law before the U.S. Patent office, you must demonstrate "technical expertise" in one of the authorized areas of speciality. This usually means a degree in chemistry or an engineering discipline. It's more technical than real property law, so that limits the number of attorneys who might specialize in that area.

I've dealt with IP cases and real property cases. I am much more comfortable with real property cases.